Uh, no incorrect. The Catholic Church recognizes baptisms in other Christian faiths as long as they are Trinitarian. It does not make them a Catholic baptism. And you do become a convert to the faith if you go through the proper training (RCIA for example). If you were not baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit then you must do so along with completing your Rite of Christian Initiation. Some Christian faiths do not perform Trinitarian baptisms, so in this case you will be baptized Catholic obviously because you are converting to the faith

uh, no...incorrect..the Catholic church certainly recognizes all baptisms as long as they follow the proscribet words, signs, etc. However, you cannot be baptized a Methodist, nor a lutheran, nor an anything wlse but a Catholic. While the Baptism may be valid, and is recognized by the church, and that no additional baptism is required to rejoin the Catholic church, it is because you were already beptized Catholic.

Look at it this way...you are baptized a Christian....there is only one true Christian church on earth...the Catholic church. The 20,000 or so other denominations are just that...splinter groups protesting one thing or another having to do with Catholicism. That's fine, but they are all separated brethren, baptized into christianity, who have chosen not to follow Christ's true church. I agree that people can convert to Catholicism, but only those who were not were not the beneficiaries of a legitimate baptism.Those who were, are merely coming home.

Well, it certainly took you long enough to string that sentence together Mr. Packer.

Not bad at all if I must say so myself...made sense, is totally true and might teach you a thing or two. Now I am from Wisconsin and being called Mr.Packer is a compliment. I'm not sure where you're from, but you would know much more about it's connotations than I would....you've been there and done that!

The story of Shadrak, Meshak and Abednigo should be a model lesson for Christians here. You can’t support a platform that defies God’s Word and still be fireproof. That includes supporting a political party that requires one to do so. With it’s support for the murder of babies and the recognition of sexual perversion as acceptable despite the teachings of His Word, it truly makes the Democratic Liberal platform the “Anti” in Antichrist. Politics will deceive many into losing their souls.

>> Many Newt supporters in the recent primary knew that. However, given a choice of the phenomenally weak Massachusetts liberal describing himself as "severely conservative" (the only person alive who would use those words about himself; I'm "responsibly conservative", for example), or a known sleaze who could at least be trusted to act conservative most of the time, many of us were willing to settle for Newt. Palin, DeMint, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Santorum, and many others ranked above Newt, but as those candidates dropped out or failed to announce, we tried to find any possible option. <<

Santorum was still running through the vast majority of the primary states, and far ahead of Newt in delegates. The Newt supporters certainly did not "try to find any possible option" or "rank Santorum ahead of Newt", otherwise they would be have been "Santorum supporters" like myself. Most of the "ANYONE but Romney" crowd quickly morphed into "NOBODY but Newt"

>> Many Newt supporters in the recent primary knew that. However, given a choice of the phenomenally weak Massachusetts liberal describing himself as "severely conservative" (the only person alive who would use those words about himself; I'm "responsibly conservative", for example), or a known sleaze who could at least be trusted to act conservative most of the time, many of us were willing to settle for Newt. Palin, DeMint, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Santorum, and many others ranked above Newt, but as those candidates dropped out or failed to announce, we tried to find any possible option. <<

Santorum was still running through the vast majority of the primary states, and far ahead of Newt in delegates. The Newt supporters certainly did not "try to find any possible option" or "rank Santorum ahead of Newt", otherwise they would have been "Santorum supporters" like myself. Most of the "ANYONE but Romney" crowd quickly morphed into "NOBODY but Newt"

Make no mistake old FRiend, my support for Santorum was lukewarm and only came after THIS and THIS. I am and was fully aware of his shortcomings and propensity to be a "Team Player."

Those links don't help you much. Sarah had Todd endorse Gingrich shortly after those two articles were published.

I doubt that you realize the dark side of Santorum's history, and the similarities that he shares with his man Mitt Romney, including being anti-Reagan, and leaving his pro-abortion position to run for office, and even supporting removing the pro-life plank from the party platform.

308
posted on 12/21/2012 9:42:29 PM PST
by ansel12
(Romney--guns not for recreation or self-defense"sole purpose of hunting down and killing people".)

What is Newt talking about? Boy, has he lost it. There’s no such thing as gay marriage. He needs to check the definition of marriage. That will never change. Apparently Newtie didn’t check with his Pastor prior to bloviating.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say. If you’re going to attempt sarcasm, you need to do so a little more coherently.

What it SEEMS like you’re trying to say - that this is indeed a federal matter based on some moral consideration - is the exact same position leftists take to shove gay marriage and nationwide legalized abortion down our throats. You’re on the opposite side in terms of the end-result but on the exact same side in terms of process. “Law X is good; therefore Law X should be the law throughout the land.” Are you familiar with the 10th Amendment?

Were we better off when abortion was legal in a FEW states or when the Supreme Court basically reasoned just as you did above and made it illegal everywhere? Same thing could happen with same-sex “marriage.”

Open up a history book. Read the section of "popular sovereignty" movement of the 1850s. It was a failed political strategy that attempted exactly what you are advocating. Resulted in nasty stuff like "bleeding Kansas"

>> Are you familiar with the 10th Amendment? <<

Yes. The 10th amendment states that matters NOT already delegated to the federal government are the jurisdiction of the states, OR the people themselves. The 10th amendment does not apply in this case since the bill of rights and 14th amendment already guarantees ALL Americans the right to life. Hence, Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided. States no more have the "right" to kill unborn children than they have the "right" to ignore the 2nd amendment and ban guns. Life and liberty are NOT matters left up to state governments to be "optional" in America.

And to think that many try to separate politics and obedience to God. So many say no one can win an election without caving morally.

Maybe that’s why President Ronald Reagan is astounding: he was a decent, law-abiding man who acknowledged God and yet actually won. I don’t believe he would have tolerated this for a moment. Good people have to stand up for right, just like those three did, in ancient Babylon.

“If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.” - Ronald Reagan

Gingrich pretends to be a Catholic. If he really were Catholic, he would listen to the Pope on gay marriage. The Pope the other day pointed out the immense danger of redefining marriage into nothingness.

Gingrich, the thrice-married CINO, says ho-hum. Some of my friends are homosexuals, he says, so let’s don’t get them upset.

I thought Gingrich was supposed to have a powerful and courageous intellect.

Of course Roe V. Wade was wrongly decided but it has nothing to do with the right to life because even that is regulated at the state level. With few exceptions, murder is a state matter, not a federal matter. If New Jersey were to insanely decide through its constitutional process to make murder a misdemeanor, it would be fully within its rights to do so.

Of course that would never happen and if it did you would see quite the exodus from New Jersey.

The BoR says the government can’t deprive a person of his life without due process. It DOESN’T say the government has to affirmatively protect life. That’s a significant difference.

All of which has little to do with homosexual “marriage.” States can clearly do whatever the hell they want to do in that regard. The real danger, though is that the SC - like it did in Roe V. Wade - summons up “emanations” and “pnumbras” to conjure a universal right for faggots to marry each other that states get no say over.

Most Newts on here were inexplicably still supporting him (and bashing Santorum as a “stalking horse for Romney”) after he was no longer viable coming in 4th in most primaries. Santorum lost several key primaries thanks to Newt voters. Epic fail. Newt was done after attacking Romney from the left as an evil millionaire and getting spanked in Florida. If he hadn’t done that he may have even won. The single dumbest move of the 2012 campaign and that’s saying a lot.

Not that Santorum was great (he wasn’t, he had numerous serious flaws) but he was better than Newt and the one that was actually in second place, the only one that could have stopped Glove from getting the nomination, period. Anyone who thought otherwise failed 2nd grade math.

When I pointed this out at the time I was called a Romney plant by the Newtbots.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.